Two people have a child out of wedlock. At age 3 Custodial parent requests that the non custodial parent sign over his rights because she is married and wants her husband to be legal adoptive father to the child. Although the non custodial parent sees the child and his family is involved and will always be the non custodial decides this is the best decision for the child. NCP is younger by about ten yeras than CP and is struggling. He feels that he can not provide the best for his son and after many tears signs away his rights. Has this notarized per the CP's request and hands over the documents.

CP still in love with NCP. She never turns papers over to court because her husband decides not to adopt the son. The son is now going to be 7. After four years of back and forth the CP uses the child as leverage to see the NCP. She begins child support then cancels it. She does this as long as NCP sees her along with the child. Now she is angry because he has made it clear that a relationship is not in the cards because he is older, wiser, and she is still married. She opted for CS again and wiped out all of his savings. The NCP is at a loss. She takes the child away constantly and he has no emotional ties to him.

Question:
Can he legally go to court with the paperwork the CP made him sign surrendering his rights as proof that this child is truly better off without him? Or is legally obligated (which is fine) till age 18? Does he have a leg to stand on to the fact that the CP has financially tormented him for years?

I guess another part of my question would be: does he have any right, if he is obligated to continue support,to somehow stabalize the way in which support is handled? She goes from him paying her, to him paying the court, to him being garnished unkowingly. That seems wrong to me. Especially since he pays and sees the child. :confused:

does anyone possibly have any info on the legalities of this situation?

If the papers were never filed with the court, then at this late date, likely they would be void to terminate parental rights without ratification by the court. So it sounds like ncp would be liable for support. I think ncp should figure out what matter to ncp. It sounds like Mom and child are a package, and if you want both, then tell her as it may be that she wants to leave her husband, but would like to know there is something waiting for her and child on the ot her side. If ncp is not open to this, then ncp should be honest, go to court, seek establishment of visitation and be realistic about there being gradual visitation given child has had limited contact with nsp, and accept that he will have to pay child support.

So the choice is yours I think. I don't know what to say but sometimes there is a lot of the love the child- hate the mother stuff going on. I think the mother is telling you that she wants to be part of the package in terms of you being with her and having a family with the child. If you do nto want her to be part of your life, then accept that the law can require you to pay support and limit visitation with your child and that regardless you are goign to have to deal with her.
Consult a local atty to get their views also.